On Wed, 16 Jan 2013 19:16:26 +0100, Christian PERRIER
wrote:
> Quoting Raphael Hertzog (hert...@debian.org):
> > On Wed, 16 Jan 2013, Christian PERRIER wrote:
> > > Quoting Jakub Wilk (jw...@debian.org):
> > > > I would paint the bikeshed the following color:
> > > > 0.8.51+dfsg1-0.1
> > >
> > >
Quoting Raphael Hertzog (hert...@debian.org):
> On Wed, 16 Jan 2013, Christian PERRIER wrote:
> > Quoting Jakub Wilk (jw...@debian.org):
> > > I would paint the bikeshed the following color:
> > > 0.8.51+dfsg1-0.1
> >
> > Isn't that missing the fact that this is a t-p-u upload, which is
> > indeed
On Wed, 16 Jan 2013, Christian PERRIER wrote:
> Quoting Jakub Wilk (jw...@debian.org):
> > I would paint the bikeshed the following color:
> > 0.8.51+dfsg1-0.1
>
> Isn't that missing the fact that this is a t-p-u upload, which is
> indeed the start of a "wheezy" branch?
>
> So something we were n
Quoting Jakub Wilk (jw...@debian.org):
> * Stephen Kitt , 2013-01-15, 23:27:
> >The version of calibre in Wheezy is 0.8.51+dfsg-1; what should the
> >update's version be? I'm purposefully not mentioning our ideas
> >(one of them is obvious from the exchanges in the bug report, but
> >is in all like
* Stephen Kitt , 2013-01-15, 23:27:
The version of calibre in Wheezy is 0.8.51+dfsg-1; what should the
update's version be? I'm purposefully not mentioning our ideas (one of
them is obvious from the exchanges in the bug report, but is in all
likelihood incorrect).
I would paint the bikeshed t
Hi,
Neither my AM (Christian Perrier) nor myself are sure about the answer to this
one, so he suggested I ask -devel for advice (and I'm throwing -mentors into
the mix too).
I've prepared an update for calibre, to fix a few issues in the package which
is currently in Wheezy (see #686547 for detai
On Wed, Jul 13, 2011 at 1:20 AM, Carlo Segre wrote:
> I recall that there was a script which permits one to compare package
> version names to determine which one is greater. I just can't remember the
> name of the script. Any clues?
dpkg --compare-versions
--
bye,
pabs
http://wiki.debian.o
Hello All:
I recall that there was a script which permits one to compare package
version names to determine which one is greater. I just can't remember
the name of the script. Any clues?
Carlo
--
Carlo U. Segre -- Professor of Physics
Associate Dean for Graduate Admissions, Graduate Colle
Hey, glad to see someone's reading the Developer's Reference closely.
--
.Adam Di [EMAIL PROTECTED]http://www.onShore.com/>
tony mancill wrote:
> On Sat, 11 Sep 1999, Josip Rodin wrote:
>
> > On Sat, Sep 11, 1999 at 02:20:07PM -0400, Peter S Galbraith wrote:
> > > We don't have a scheme which doesn't force other arches to
> > > rebuild beacuse of another arch build's mistake, right?
> >
> > I think that we use -2.0.
On Sat, 11 Sep 1999, Josip Rodin wrote:
> On Sat, Sep 11, 1999 at 02:20:07PM -0400, Peter S Galbraith wrote:
> > We don't have a scheme which doesn't force other arches to
> > rebuild beacuse of another arch build's mistake, right?
>
> I think that we use -2.0.1 , meaning "a recompile of -2". I'v
On Sat, Sep 11, 1999 at 02:20:07PM -0400, Peter S Galbraith wrote:
> We don't have a scheme which doesn't force other arches to
> rebuild beacuse of another arch build's mistake, right?
I think that we use -2.0.1 , meaning "a recompile of -2". I've seen
that quite often, don't know how official it
Am I missing something trivial?
Say I have these sources:
PACKAGENAME_VERSION.orig.tar.gz
I make a second debian version and upload:
PACKAGENAME_VERSION-2.diff.gz
PACKAGENAME_VERSION-2_i386-slink.deb
and other builders and robots build the other arches.
Now I realise that I used the wron
13 matches
Mail list logo
